Back
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.KUMARAPPAN
Nallara Gounder (died) – Appellant
Versus
Jayagandhi Ammal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
C. KUMARAPPAN, J.
1. The defendants are the appellants. The suit property originally belonged to one Kuppusamy Gounder. He got three sons by name Sadhasiva Gounder, Mottaiya Gounder and Nallara Gounder. The suit has been filed by one Mottaiya Gounder against his brother Nallara Gounder in O.S.No.379 of 1982. Similarly the defendants in O.S.No.379 of 1982 have also filed another suit in O.S.No.199 of 1982 against Mottaiya Gounder namely, the plaintiff in O.S.No.379 of 1982. Since both the suits were in respect of the same property and between the same parties, both the suits were tried together and the suit filed by Mottaiya Gounder was dismissed. However, the suit filed by Nallara Gounder was allowed by common judgement dated 30.06.1987. Against which, two separate appeals have been filed in A.S.Nos.3 of 2007 and 32 of 2006, wherein, the common judgment has been passed on 15.03.2008 by allowing the appeal. The present appeals have been filed against the said common judgment. Therefore, both the appeals are taken up together for disposal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred according to their litigative status in O.S.No.379 of 1982.
3. The brief facts
The existence of a joint family does not suffice to declare property as joint family property without proof of surplus income used for acquisition.
The plaintiff must prove the existence of a joint family nucleus to establish claims over joint family properties; mere relation does not imply entitlement.
In joint family property disputes, the burden of proof lies with the party claiming self-acquisition, and failure to substantiate claims results in the affirmation of joint property status.
The burden of proof lies on the person claiming property as self-acquired to establish that it was acquired without the aid of joint family funds.
The burden of proof is on the party alleging that the property has the character of joint family property. Properties standing in the name of an individual are considered to belong to that individual....
The burden of proof lies on the party asserting that property is joint family property, and mere existence of a joint family does not presume property to be joint.
The burden of proof on the plaintiffs to establish the disputed properties as joint family properties and the application of settled principles of law in determining the entitlement to the properties....
A partition among heirs was established, and the properties in question were determined to be self-acquired, nullifying the plaintiffs' claims of joint family property.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
